Sorry to be harsh (not trying to be), but there's too much empty sky in the upper 2/3 of the image. Do you have any other versions that pan down slightly, and perhaps have slightly more exposure?

It's OK, I appreciate your input. That was the lowest I could get. In PP I was troubled whith that empty sky and I considered cropping, but I didn't like the results so I left it as it's showed. I also underexposed it in PP... I always tend to underexpose in PP.

Sorry to be harsh (not trying to be), but there's too much empty sky in the upper 2/3 of the image. Do you have any other versions that pan down slightly, and perhaps have slightly more exposure?

It's OK, I appreciate your input. That was the lowest I could get. In PP I was troubled whith that empty sky and I considered cropping, but I didn't like the results so I left it as it's showed. I also underexposed it in PP... I always tend to underexpose in PP.

Hi Carl.I have DPP and UFRAW for raw manipulation and the Gimp for jpeg manipulation. I'm not really so much having problems with software as much as having a problem getting enthused to spend ages fiddling to see my pictures get worse, it seems whatever I do with sliders and curves etc the image always looks better when reset to default settings. This has he effect of not being encouragement enough to invest in non open source software, particularly shy of buying the wrong software as I don't know what I want to achieve! I'm sure it is more the fact I don't seem to have an artistic bone in my body.Show me a drawing for a component and I can pretty much superimpose the tool on it mentally but ask me to draw a line I got to get a rule!

Sorry to be harsh (not trying to be), but there's too much empty sky in the upper 2/3 of the image. Do you have any other versions that pan down slightly, and perhaps have slightly more exposure?

It's OK, I appreciate your input. That was the lowest I could get. In PP I was troubled whith that empty sky and I considered cropping, but I didn't like the results so I left it as it's showed. I also underexposed it in PP... I always tend to underexpose in PP.

Sorry to be harsh (not trying to be), but there's too much empty sky in the upper 2/3 of the image. Do you have any other versions that pan down slightly, and perhaps have slightly more exposure?

It's OK, I appreciate your input. That was the lowest I could get. In PP I was troubled whith that empty sky and I considered cropping, but I didn't like the results so I left it as it's showed. I also underexposed it in PP... I always tend to underexpose in PP.

Sorry to be harsh (not trying to be), but there's too much empty sky in the upper 2/3 of the image. Do you have any other versions that pan down slightly, and perhaps have slightly more exposure?

It's OK, I appreciate your input. That was the lowest I could get. In PP I was troubled whith that empty sky and I considered cropping, but I didn't like the results so I left it as it's showed. I also underexposed it in PP... I always tend to underexpose in PP.

crop it off and make it a panorama

Cropped and a little less underexposed...

I like that better, but I keep wanting to go back in time and push down on your camera! The snowy part of the mountains, it's just too close to the bottom of the image. If you only took the one shot...I need to ask why? I would have taken at least 6 different shots with slightly different compositions (and probably more like 10)...while also deciding on exposure. I'm guessing I would be deciding between +2/3 and +1 2/3 EV compensation...in order to maximize the bits of info in the dark areas...especially since there really is no very bright part of the image. Rule # 1 in digital photography is, you maximize the RGB exposure (without clipping) by looking at each one's curve, either after you've taken test shots, or during live view or something. It's not always exactly right, depending on the camera, its light meter, and other factors...so it's best to just take the shots, and decide later which ones are best. Or else do a series of different exposures for possible HDR merger later.

You can always make an artistically intentional "dark exposure" from a normal or slightly over-exposed one, later in post editing...if that's what you were going for. But you can't bring up exposure of an underexposed image later, without it looking like a robot vomited digital bits all over it! Unless of course you have a D800, in which case you could just leave the lens cap on, and get a normal exposure...or at least that's what those fanbois say...

Hi Carl.I have DPP and UFRAW for raw manipulation and the Gimp for jpeg manipulation. I'm not really so much having problems with software as much as having a problem getting enthused to spend ages fiddling to see my pictures get worse, it seems whatever I do with sliders and curves etc the image always looks better when reset to default settings. This has he effect of not being encouragement enough to invest in non open source software, particularly shy of buying the wrong software as I don't know what I want to achieve! I'm sure it is more the fact I don't seem to have an artistic bone in my body.Show me a drawing for a component and I can pretty much superimpose the tool on it mentally but ask me to draw a line I got to get a rule!

Hi Graham...thank you, I thought "PP" was an acronym for a specific software...duhhh I was overthinking it!

Which software is giving you a problem?

Lightroom 5 is just very cheap now...you should try it. It's a rare occasion when default settings, or else "all sliders at zero", makes an image better, than after I've sunken my meddling brain into it!

Anyone who spends time thinking about photography, and then photographing...does have artistic bones. You can't deny what you are, just because you "can't draw". Plenty of visual artists "can't draw". Probably plenty of famous photographers and cinematographers, also "can't draw".

I used to draw, paint, and even airbrush...but I've spent a long time letting that part of my artistic expression go extinct.